“The World’s First Post-National State”

December 13th, 2011   by   Andrew

A week ago I was watching a talk from journalist John Ibbitson on how the old political guard in my country is giving way to a new order of things. He used this line to describe Canada:

The World’s First Post-National State

Canada’s story is typically written with a theme something like, “how will the English and French get along?” Ibbitson uses the phrase the “Laurentian Consensus” to describe the old political guard – the strong line of old families and waterways along the St. Lawrence Seaway from Montreal to Ottawa to Toronto. Canada’s political system is a little strange in that it is a representative regional democracy. Instead of clearcut checks and balances for power, there is a lot of trust involved that the population will vote strategically. Throughout our history, the one overwhelming assumption seems to have held strong- regardless of who got in power, Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto dictated the thoughtful and correct issues to talk about.

For the most part, it worked, although some of our history is a comedy of sloppiness. It’s actually fortunate that we’ve never had the population to throw any real power around or we could have gotten into real trouble. We tend to be thought of as “nice” in part because we’ve never really had the power to be anything else.

Our last election was quite a blow against that old guard. That assumption of power and correctness is now being publicly questioned and successfully challenged. A much more intriguing and accurate theme is showing up in the story of Canada – immigration and movement. And Ibbitson’s conclusions seem to follow a greater pattern – power moves, and it usually moves west with population.

This is a religious blog, mostly, and so I look for parallels in the religious world. The move away from national states into post-national states is a pattern that I think is not going to fade away. Borders, being made-up authoritative lines and not exactly “real”, sure ain’t what they used to be. The same goes for religious borders. Last year I was reading some articles on Samir Selmanovic, a self-proclaimed Muslim Atheist Christian Jew. His father was Muslim and his mother Christian. They brought him up as an atheist, and now he’s a minister that works on interfaith dialogue. He refers to religions as “God-management systems,” which has to be one of the funniest, most honest and most accurate descriptions I’ve ever heard.

The assumption in Canada was that the old guard should set the agenda, whether we like it or not. The assumption when people bring up religion is that the discussion is going to be about magic, whether the religious want it to be or not.

In playing with Ibbitson’s description, I came up with this question:

Are we on the verge of defining the world’s first post-magic religion?

I suppose it’s already here. People within certain religious groups have certainly tried to shrug off the superstition label. However, self-definition doesn’t satisfy the critics outside the religion. Is it possible to come up with a post-magic religion, or at least one that can be defined as such by both those inside and outside of it?

His Holiness the Dalai Lama has a book entitled, “Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World.” He has been making efforts to peel the layers of magic from his own tradition. Some Christians have been wrestling with this dilemma quite a lot too. What’s interesting is that when they do try to remove the magic, they get slack from both the hardline Christians and the secular critics. Change, like power, takes movement. Some people only want to see dramatic movement while others are afraid to move at all.

According to this site, maybe as many as 70% of the world’s Jewish population would call themselves ‘secular Jews‘ and even heading towards atheism.

That’s a lot of people no longer accepting the old assumptions. The very culture that inspired what the world thinks of as monotheism today continues to change and alter its assumptions.

What do you think?

Can there be such a thing as a post-national state? And is Canada a good example?

Can there be such a thing as religion without magic? And what would it look like?


Surreal Transcendence

September 12th, 2011   by   Andrew

Inspired by a recent comment from Robert on my post about Salvador Dali.

:-)



Why are girls attracted to Buddhism?

April 19th, 2010   by   OMGLOL

For Lisa Simpson.

Sometimes you just run with an idea…


Buddhism — Serenity Now!

March 8th, 2010   by   Andrew

Today I wanted to talk about the last of the Three Vinegar Tasters.

Imagine if you will the three of Lao-Tse, K’ung Fu Tzu and the Buddha standing around a vat of vinegar. After each has tasted the vinegar we are to read their expressions as follows:

K’ung Fu Tzu has a sour look, which reflects his austere and regimented ordering of morality.

Buddha wears a bitter expression, a kind of note on how Buddha saw the life of attachment and desires being a kind of root of suffering that had to be transcended.

Lao Tse has a rather broad smile after tasting the vinegar. The vinegar still tastes like vinegar to him, but it can still be appreciated for what it is and for its own nature. The vinegar is what it is and your reaction to it is something more about you than about the vinegar.

So the story goes. (I think it was being used to prove a point for the Taoist, but that’s another matter…)

Now I do have a criticism about this portrayal. Of the Buddhists that I have met, the bitter expression is not the impression I have of them. Instead there is either a blank and open expression or a serene, patient relaxation.

On a Saturday a few weeks ago, there was a workshop at the local college called “The Art of Meditation”. It was hosted by the local teacher from the Kuluta Buddhist Centre, Kelsang Donsang.

Maybe it’s just me, but this guy just doesn’t seem that concerned about the bitterness of the taste of vinegar.

It was a fun day. About twenty people attended, and I was amazed by the spectrum of people that took part in the workshop. There was a couple that brought their own yoga mats. There were a few grey-haired women that smiled a lot and by the end of the day had introduced themselves easily to everyone. There were two farm-couples, solid but worked bodies dressed in plaids and jeans. And then like Shannon and me, there were middle-of-the-journey searchers to round out the collection.

Kelsang Donsang had a lot of helpful words to say that Saturday. The focus of the day was meditation but it was difficult to explain things without putting them into the context of his religion. He was quite gracious and apologetic and only tried to insert as much about his beliefs as was necessary to bring the focus back on proper meditation. One of the things he said that I remember clearly is this:

“Please, don’t swallow my words because I wear robes.”

I thought this was good advice, regardless of the words or the robes being worn.

There are many schools of Buddhism, but they do share most of the fundamental beliefs. To the Buddhist, there is suffering but it is things like desire (to have, to control, etc.) that cause suffering.  There is an end to suffering when a person lets go of that desire and attachment through the study and practice of wisdom, morality and meditation.

For a more complete introduction to Buddhism, try this site or this site.

.

Now I just can’t write something on Buddhism without bringing up the Dalai Lama. I have a lot of respect for this guy.

Here is the thing I most respect about the Dalai Lama — he is willing to change his mind, and even his religion.

He has been involved in scientific research on the effects of meditation on the brain. He has even been quoted as saying, “If science proves some belief of Buddhism is wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality.”

Seriously? That is an incredible statement for a religious leader to make! He might be able to make such a statement because Buddhism is as much a philosophy as it is a religion, but it is still an incredible statement.

I believe he is sincere about this, but I don’t really know the guy, right? What are your thoughts? Is your religion open to change? Should religion align itself so closely with modern science?